Why are you telling someone to stop responding? It's also interesting that you seem to be guilty of what you are accusing her.

Actually, I'm puzzled about why he would think there is something inappropriate with my not putting forth "axioms".

The definition is: "(logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident".

I haven't put forward any propositions assumed to be self-evident. Why would I? In fact, I'm utterly puzzled why anyone who knew the definition of "axiom" would have ever accused anyone of "...sidetracking into uninteresting axioms." as Frogbyte did in Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:19 pm. Based on his two posts using the word, I strongly suspect he simply doesn't know what the word means.

FWIW: That he may not find what I write interesting doesn't bother me. I find what he writes rather peculiar and disconnected. But since you seem to be responding, I would hardly suggest he doesn't have a right to post. Presumably, if he wanted a conversation with you alone, and you wanted that as well, you two would have this discussion by email instead of on a forum that permits many people to subscribe. That would cut me out, right?

Yea I don't think he knows what it means either. He sometimes argues against axioms, which usually puzzles me the most. Then here he is arguing against the established definition of a word. Very strange.

Axiom doesn't mean "definition of a word". Labeling government-run health care as anything (whether socialist, medieval, benevolent, authoritarian or whatever label you would like to apply) would hardly qualify as being an axiom.

I guess his confusion about the meaning of "axiom" might explain why he might be worried about someone posting uninteresting axioms. As it happens, most axioms are pretty uninteresting. They are things all people involved in some particular discourse are willing to agree is true without any requiring any proof or resorting to any logical argument.

I asked that callipygian50 "please" not post because it's uninteresting noise, as the last few posts questioning my vocabulary continued to be. It was a polite request, not a directive.

The part of this thread I was interested in was figuring out why Ironman thought libertarians couldn't support laws recognizing the rights of the unborn. I just thought that was such an unusual position to hold that it was worth exploring.

I do of course think that restricting a woman's right to do things to the unborn is a decrease in her liberty, yes. But it's similar to restricting anyone's right to do anything to another person. "My right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose."

he part of this thread I was interested in was figuring out why Ironman thought libertarians couldn't support laws recognizing the rights of the unborn. I just thought that was such an unusual position to hold that it was worth exploring.

It's not an unusual position to not recognize rights of the unborn. It's also not unusual to not recognize rights of minors, aliens, or any others.

Sure, lots of people don't want to recognize rights of the unborn. The unusual thing was saying that that was the only acceptable libertarian position.

Why do you think it's unusual to say that? (I'm puzzled because you were ostensibly asking Ironman because you didn't know the position libertarians take. But even if you previously and still think this is an unusual position for libertarians, why do you think this? Because it seems do at odds with facts.)

I was just commenting on the definition of libertarian. You seem to think it is something other than what it is. It's like asking what's wrong with a mammal having scales, being cold blooded and laying eggs. It's not a comment on if something is good or bad.

The Libertarian party has always had a pro choice platform. So it's not just me.

Lately there are lots of conservatives who apparently don't want to call themselves conservatives. So they call themselves libertarian. They are different from Republicans because they aren't fascist or near-fascist. However they are different from libertarians too.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Non involvement of the government is the usual position of libertarians on most things. It is their usual position on abortion. Fairly recently, there are a few people who call themselves libertarians who want to make abortion illegal, but this is not the usual position. It is the unusual position and contrary to the Libertarian party's platform.

Shrug, yes that's the Libertarian party's fluffy stance. However, the Libertarian party has only about as much control over the adjective libertarian as the Green party has over the adjective green, or the Democratic party has over "democratic."

The Libertarian party are the far right. As you move to the left even non-libertarians are pro-choice.

We libertarians are not fond of the government telling us what opinion we need to have on abortion. We hate black markets and criminalization. We get a choice. It is NOT the role of government to dictate such things to us.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum